A debatable proposal

A reasonably rational suggestion emerges from a government generally regarded as irrational:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday challenged US President George W. Bush to a live television debate on world issues.
The challenge came two days before a UN deadline for Iran to halt sensitive atomic work. "I suggest we talk with Mr Bush, the president of the US, in a live television debate about world issues and ways out of these standoffs. We would voice our opinions and they would too," he said in a news conference.
The debate "should be uncensored, above all for the American public," said Mr Ahmadinejad.
Earlier this year Mr Ahmadinejad sent Mr Bush a letter in the first contact in decades between leaders of the two countries. However a White House official rejected the debate offer outright, dismissing Mr Ahmadinejad's move as "a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the US, has about Iran's behaviour."

Given the damage the Iraq war has done to America's international prestige, this is certainly an opportunity, though as noted, it has already been dismissed out of hand. Just like an election, the administration has decided nothing is gained by accepting such a challenge, and much can be risked. They are probably right--there is little end to the talking points that can currently be used against our foreign policy. And yet, if the administration has a serious case that Iran's behavior--coupled with the pursuit of nuclear technology--poses an international threat, what better way to make the case than through a direct and public dialogue? If our nation still eventually feels compelled to go to war over this issue, would it not have proven our desire to settle things differently if an American President deigned to debate his counterpart on the global stage? Might not such a gesture do more to restore world confidence in America's intentions than all the global tsunami and earthquake relief of the past few years?

Then again, being the Leader of the Free World means never having to say you're sorry for your strategery...

"If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom." Presidential candidate George W. Bush, debating Al Gore, October 2000